These age requirements are in the Constitution and are thus not subject to EEO legislation.

Agreed, but that is my questions: Why? Holders of office are paid a wage and consider political office to be not just a job, but a career as well; so why is this not flagged as discrimination just because the constitution states age requirements? Those should be as easy to amend as basic Civil Rights. Don't discriminate based on race, age, religion, origin, etc.; why is age so easily left out in this one singular instance of our culture?

There needs to be a normative basis to measure maturity and ability for offices of such magnitude. It's not discrimination.

OK, fair point. But, why doesn't there have to be a level of maturity to handle my finances, my money in the stock market, my retirement plan, my health insurance, my medical issues, the day-to-day operations and well-being of multi-billion dollar corporations, or any other highly important, extremely risky professions?

Because those who are restricted by age in the offices you mentioned create all of those things for you. They run the banks, they ARE Wall Street, they supply welfare (of any breed), they're heavily involved in multi-billion dollar corporations, and they make the laws mandating how any of those things operate. You can't be too nit-picky, but they are the top dogs. They need at least something more than the judgment of a people.

"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW

There needs to be a normative basis to measure maturity and ability for offices of such magnitude. It's not discrimination.

OK, fair point. But, why doesn't there have to be a level of maturity to handle my finances, my money in the stock market, my retirement plan, my health insurance, my medical issues, the day-to-day operations and well-being of multi-billion dollar corporations, or any other highly important, extremely risky professions?

Because those who are restricted by age in the offices you mentioned create all of those things for you. They run the banks, they ARE Wall Street, they supply welfare (of any breed), they're heavily involved in multi-billion dollar corporations, and they make the laws mandating how any of those things operate. You can't be too nit-picky, but they are the top dogs. They need at least something more than the judgment of a people.

A few points of note here:

1) The federal government does not run "the banks"; banks purchase insurance from the government, but they are not government entities. Remember, the treasury and banking institutions are not managed by the government in any meaningful ways. Think of them just like private businesses.

2) The government is separate from wall street. If this were not the case, wall street and every other global stock exchange would not be able to provide trustworthy market analysis and predictions as governments could just stack the numbers in their favor. Think what would happen if a major global stock exchange was managed by the Chinese government.

3) The government does not supply welfare, the tax payers supply welfare. Remember, the government is unable to generate income or a profit, it may only collect revenues via taxes, tariffs, etc. The government simply manages the redistribution of these levied revenue streams; and they are quite terrible at even that as is evident by our debt, deficit and unfunded liabilities.

4) I would require further details on what you mean by "...they're heavily involved in multi-billion dollar corporations..." in order to properly respond as this statement is just to vague to grasp your intent.

5) The top-level federal government does not regulate fair and safe operations of any business, product or service; top-level is used as the executive, judicial and legislative branches are composed of the positions in questions (political office), but then the executive branch breaks down into governmental organizations such as the Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Department of Education, etc., none of which are restricted by this age requirement. These organizations, although under the umbrella of federal government - Executive Branch; are in theory and practical application, operating as separate entities from the federal government. The regulatory organizations are separate, independent organizations. Examples of these are Federal Labor Relations Authority, Federal Communications Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission; all independently operated entities.

While the federal government has many hands in many pots these days, the only things they truly have any control over are national defense, declaration and management of war and wartime efforts, and regulatory implementations based upon and for the sole purpose of levying revenue through taxes, tariffs and other statutory charges levied against products and services.

That being said, one could very easily argue that in today's global, high-speed, and extremely interconnected and trust-required businesses, markets and economies; more maturity is required in private sector operations than in governmental operations.

At 8/23/2016 2:26:10 AM, Greyparrot wrote:Plus we would never have had Doogie Houser.

Along this thought process, as sarcastic as it may be, let me say that I do fully support age requirements for office, specifically presidency, in order to keep functionally retarded people like Kanye West from running for office while they are indescribably, overly-popular with the younger voters; allowing plenty of time for them to do utterly moronic things, the scale of which may only be truly understood by erecting The Three Gorges Dam inside of your standard apartment bathroom to impede the water from your overflowing toilet from crossing the threshold, dampening the edge of your carpet slightly.

Not my best random rant, but I feel it successfully conveys my point in an oddly obscure and potentially troll inviting manner; wouldn't you agree?

At 8/23/2016 2:26:10 AM, Greyparrot wrote:Plus we would never have had Doogie Houser.

Along this thought process, as sarcastic as it may be, let me say that I do fully support age requirements for office, specifically presidency, in order to keep functionally retarded people like Kanye West from running for office while they are indescribably, overly-popular with the younger voters; allowing plenty of time for them to do utterly moronic things, the scale of which may only be truly understood by erecting The Three Gorges Dam inside of your standard apartment bathroom to impede the water from your overflowing toilet from crossing the threshold, dampening the edge of your carpet slightly.

Not my best random rant, but I feel it successfully conveys my point in an oddly obscure and potentially troll inviting manner; wouldn't you agree?

At 8/23/2016 2:26:10 AM, Greyparrot wrote:Plus we would never have had Doogie Houser.

Along this thought process, as sarcastic as it may be, let me say that I do fully support age requirements for office, specifically presidency, in order to keep functionally retarded people like Kanye West from running for office while they are indescribably, overly-popular with the younger voters; allowing plenty of time for them to do utterly moronic things, the scale of which may only be truly understood by erecting The Three Gorges Dam inside of your standard apartment bathroom to impede the water from your overflowing toilet from crossing the threshold, dampening the edge of your carpet slightly.

Not my best random rant, but I feel it successfully conveys my point in an oddly obscure and potentially troll inviting manner; wouldn't you agree?